CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: celticsclay on August 07, 2017, 02:09:21 PM
-
Ball runaway favorite, Dennis Smith second, Simmons 3rd and Fultz 4th. Tatum had a few votes.
A few thoughts from me:
I am actually a little more interested in the ROY this year. It seemed like Simmons could have actually played 10 games down the stretch last year, but there was speculation that has contract that has a sizable bonus if he wins ROY year, helped convince him and the team to not have suit up towards the end of the year (I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but something I read repeatedly on the 76ers blog).
It is pretty impressive that Dennis Smith received second most votes after being drafted 9th. It seems like his summer league performance impressed people around the NBA more than anyone else.
As a Celtics fan it is nice to see Fultz is actually down 4th. Obviously this doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things, but he was made out to be the second coming briefly before the draft and players like Lebron, Shaq etc were always runaway favorites for the ROY. This shows at least some people on the panel didn't have him as a level above the other rookies. (which at least is a tiny bit nerve calming).
-
Ball runaway favorite, Dennis Smith second, Simmons 3rd and Fultz 4th. Tatum had a few votes.
A few thoughts from me:
I am actually a little more interested in the ROY this year. It seemed like Simmons could have actually played 10 games down the stretch last year, but there was speculation that has contract that has a sizable bonus if he wins ROY year, helped convince him and the team to not have suit up towards the end of the year (I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but something I read repeatedly on the 76ers blog).
It is pretty impressive that Dennis Smith received second most votes after being drafted 9th. It seems like his summer league performance impressed people around the NBA more than anyone else.
As a Celtics fan it is nice to see Fultz is actually down 4th. Obviously this doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things, but he was made out to be the second coming briefly before the draft and players like Lebron, Shaq etc were always runaway favorites for the ROY. This shows at least some people on the panel didn't have him as a level above the other rookies. (which at least is a tiny bit nerve calming).
The likelihood of Simmons having such a bonus is very, very low, because such a bonus could not carry him above the 120% slot value that he reportedly signed for. So if there is such a clause, it would mean that he got less than 120%, which would probably be a first for a #1 overall pick since they introduced the slotting system.
-
Ball runaway favorite, Dennis Smith second, Simmons 3rd and Fultz 4th. Tatum had a few votes.
A few thoughts from me:
I am actually a little more interested in the ROY this year. It seemed like Simmons could have actually played 10 games down the stretch last year, but there was speculation that has contract that has a sizable bonus if he wins ROY year, helped convince him and the team to not have suit up towards the end of the year (I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but something I read repeatedly on the 76ers blog).
It is pretty impressive that Dennis Smith received second most votes after being drafted 9th. It seems like his summer league performance impressed people around the NBA more than anyone else.
As a Celtics fan it is nice to see Fultz is actually down 4th. Obviously this doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things, but he was made out to be the second coming briefly before the draft and players like Lebron, Shaq etc were always runaway favorites for the ROY. This shows at least some people on the panel didn't have him as a level above the other rookies. (which at least is a tiny bit nerve calming).
The likelihood of Simmons having such a bonus is very, very low, because such a bonus could not carry him above the 120% slot value that he reportedly signed for. So if there is such a clause, it would mean that he got less than 120%, which would probably be a first for a #1 overall pick since they introduced the slotting system.
It looks like winning ROY could mean bonuses in his shoe contract with Nike:
The deal also includes bonuses that will push the value above $20 million. Some bonuses are achievable with solid efforts such as All-Rookie team and Rookie of the Year, and some, such as first-team All-NBA and MVP, are difficult to attain.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2016/06/28/nike-shoe-contract-no-1-pick-ben-simmons/86491236/
Good for Dennis Smith. He's in a unique position of likely both getting a lot of minutes right away and playing for a team trying to make the playoffs. It would be pretty great for the Celtics if Smith ended up the best PG in the draft and teh econd best player over all.
-
Ball is so overrated.
-
Ball is so overrated.
He's really not Potter, especially when you consider, Opportunity, making money for the Lakers, and he contributes to winning in a big way. He's going to be special.
-
another year where 76ers will have two rookies competing for ROY since usually all the rookies they draft gets injured
-
I think Ball could be the overall best player to come out of this draft when all is said and done. Have been saying that for a while. Still happy with the Tatum selection and trade with Philly as that LA pick could be Deandre Ayton or Mohammed Bamba.
My ROY candidate is Simmons. Think he could put up a bunch of triple doubles in Philly.
-
Sixers have the problem of 2 rookies taking votes from the other. The others are basically ranked by playing time, opportunity, and exposure.
-
Ball runaway favorite, Dennis Smith second, Simmons 3rd and Fultz 4th. Tatum had a few votes.
A few thoughts from me:
I am actually a little more interested in the ROY this year. It seemed like Simmons could have actually played 10 games down the stretch last year, but there was speculation that has contract that has a sizable bonus if he wins ROY year, helped convince him and the team to not have suit up towards the end of the year (I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but something I read repeatedly on the 76ers blog).
It is pretty impressive that Dennis Smith received second most votes after being drafted 9th. It seems like his summer league performance impressed people around the NBA more than anyone else.
As a Celtics fan it is nice to see Fultz is actually down 4th. Obviously this doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things, but he was made out to be the second coming briefly before the draft and players like Lebron, Shaq etc were always runaway favorites for the ROY. This shows at least some people on the panel didn't have him as a level above the other rookies. (which at least is a tiny bit nerve calming).
The likelihood of Simmons having such a bonus is very, very low, because such a bonus could not carry him above the 120% slot value that he reportedly signed for. So if there is such a clause, it would mean that he got less than 120%, which would probably be a first for a #1 overall pick since they introduced the slotting system.
Saltlover it seems it is actually a shoe bonus per the other poster...
-
I think Ball could be the overall best player to come out of this draft when all is said and done. Have been saying that for a while. Still happy with the Tatum selection and trade with Philly as that LA pick could be Deandre Ayton or Mohammed Bamba.
My ROY candidate is Simmons. Think he could put up a bunch of triple doubles in Philly.
Ball will be ROY but it will be primarily a political pick. Lakers are the most important franchise to the league and that fan base is desperate for some hope. What better way to create some goodwill among the fans of what no doubt will be another awful team than giving Magic's first draft pick ROY? He'll have some exciting passes and what not and decent stats.
-
I think Ball could be the overall best player to come out of this draft when all is said and done. Have been saying that for a while. Still happy with the Tatum selection and trade with Philly as that LA pick could be Deandre Ayton or Mohammed Bamba.
My ROY candidate is Simmons. Think he could put up a bunch of triple doubles in Philly.
Ball will be ROY but it will be primarily a political pick. Lakers are the most important franchise to the league and that fan base is desperate for some hope. What better way to create some goodwill among the fans of what no doubt will be another awful team than giving Magic's first draft pick ROY? He'll have some exciting passes and what not and decent stats.
I also expect a huge deal to be made about how PPG isn't everything, and it's been forever since a non-scorer won ROY. So Ball wins ROY despite there being a player that had a much better season, sort of like Verlander winning MVP over Ellsbury a few years ago because it had been so long since a pitcher won MVP
-
Ball is so overrated.
He's really not Potter, especially when you consider, Opportunity, making money for the Lakers, and he contributes to winning in a big way. He's going to be special.
Let's at least see him win an NBA game before we start saying stuff like that
-
I think Daaron Fox will win it..I said before the draft I think he was the best player.only time will tell
-
Fox shoots 20% from 3. He makes rondo look like ray
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
I've seen a couple of people say this but I don't think I agree. I can see MVP candidates on teh same team splitting votes because the MVP conversation is usually so centered around how much a player helps his team win. ROY tends to be a much more individualistic award and go to teams were contributions to winning aren't important because the teams don't win much.
I expect Philly will be below .500 as Fultz and Simmons will both have a shot at ROY.
-
Ball is so overrated.
Yup. Gives me a headache seeing all the love he gets while overlooking the massive flaws in his game.
-
Ball will get bigger and stronger and improve on his defense. I also agree with Nick that he probably end up the best player in this draft, which is more important than ROY. Not sure how he is overrated. He's not Kendall Marshall and he doesn't remind me much of Jason Kidd. He appears to have the special feel for the game that Bird and Magic had. It will be interesting to see what he becomes.
-
Ball will get bigger and stronger and improve on his defense. I also agree with Nick that he probably end up the best player in this draft, which is more important than ROY. Not sure how he is overrated. He's not Kendall Marshall and he doesn't remind me much of Jason Kidd. He appears to have the special feel for the game that Bird and Magic had. It will be interesting to see what he becomes.
THAT'S why he's overrated, ha!
he might end up being great
but if he's being compared to bird and magic before playing an actual game then he's currently being overrated IMO
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
I've seen a couple of people say this but I don't think I agree. I can see MVP candidates on teh same team splitting votes because the MVP conversation is usually so centered around how much a player helps his team win. ROY tends to be a much more individualistic award and go to teams were contributions to winning aren't important because the teams don't win much.
I expect Philly will be below .500 as Fultz and Simmons will both have a shot at ROY.
ask Embiid and Saric how it went this year
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
I've seen a couple of people say this but I don't think I agree. I can see MVP candidates on teh same team splitting votes because the MVP conversation is usually so centered around how much a player helps his team win. ROY tends to be a much more individualistic award and go to teams were contributions to winning aren't important because the teams don't win much.
I expect Philly will be below .500 as Fultz and Simmons will both have a shot at ROY.
ask Embiid and Saric how it went this year
Embiid didn't win ROY because the majority of voters didn't think he played in enough games not because he split the vote with Saric. If Embiid had played in 10 more games he would have won easily.
-
Ball will get bigger and stronger and improve on his defense. I also agree with Nick that he probably end up the best player in this draft, which is more important than ROY. Not sure how he is overrated. He's not Kendall Marshall and he doesn't remind me much of Jason Kidd. He appears to have the special feel for the game that Bird and Magic had. It will be interesting to see what he becomes.
THAT'S why he's overrated, ha!
he might end up being great
but if he's being compared to bird and magic before playing an actual game then he's currently being overrated IMO
Exactly. People are already acting as if he's the greatest playmaker in the league, and he hasn't even played a regular season game.
His inability to create his own shot will hinder his game massively IMO, as will his porous defence. Comparisons to Bird and Magic are pretty ridiculous.
-
Ball will get bigger and stronger and improve on his defense. I also agree with Nick that he probably end up the best player in this draft, which is more important than ROY. Not sure how he is overrated. He's not Kendall Marshall and he doesn't remind me much of Jason Kidd. He appears to have the special feel for the game that Bird and Magic had. It will be interesting to see what he becomes.
THAT'S why he's overrated, ha!
he might end up being great
but if he's being compared to bird and magic before playing an actual game then he's currently being overrated IMO
Exactly. People are already acting as if he's the greatest playmaker in the league, and he hasn't even played a regular season game.
His inability to create his own shot will hinder his game massively IMO, as will his porous defence. Comparisons to Bird and Magic are pretty ridiculous.
Just saying his feel for the game is at a ridiculous hall of fame level. Maybe he won't be able to guard a chair. Maybe he won't be a good shooter. But he understands the game and sees the court amazingly well.
-
Ball will get bigger and stronger and improve on his defense. I also agree with Nick that he probably end up the best player in this draft, which is more important than ROY. Not sure how he is overrated. He's not Kendall Marshall and he doesn't remind me much of Jason Kidd. He appears to have the special feel for the game that Bird and Magic had. It will be interesting to see what he becomes.
THAT'S why he's overrated, ha!
he might end up being great
but if he's being compared to bird and magic before playing an actual game then he's currently being overrated IMO
Exactly. People are already acting as if he's the greatest playmaker in the league, and he hasn't even played a regular season game.
His inability to create his own shot will hinder his game massively IMO, as will his porous defence. Comparisons to Bird and Magic are pretty ridiculous.
Just saying his feel for the game is at a ridiculous hall of fame level. Maybe he won't be able to guard a chair. Maybe he won't be a good shooter. But he understands the game and sees the court amazingly well.
Rondo understands the game and sees the court amazingly well but it doesn't make him Bird or Magic. I expect Ball to struggle once teams recognize and start exploiting his weaknesses.
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
I've seen a couple of people say this but I don't think I agree. I can see MVP candidates on teh same team splitting votes because the MVP conversation is usually so centered around how much a player helps his team win. ROY tends to be a much more individualistic award and go to teams were contributions to winning aren't important because the teams don't win much.
I expect Philly will be below .500 as Fultz and Simmons will both have a shot at ROY.
ask Embiid and Saric how it went this year
Embiid didn't win ROY because the majority of voters didn't think he played in enough games not because he split the vote with Saric. If Embiid had played in 10 more games he would have won easily.
That doesn't explain Saric though, who had better stats with a similar role as Brogdon. People didn't vote for Saric, in part, because Embiid was on his team and was better than him.
-
It is what it is. We should be happy that the Celtics are really too good of a team for any rookie outside of a transcendent talent (like a Bird or Duncan) to ever win Rookie of the Year.
-
Ball should win it for a number of reasons: playing style, team should improve, Laker bias, and Fultz/Simmons will split vote.
I've seen a couple of people say this but I don't think I agree. I can see MVP candidates on teh same team splitting votes because the MVP conversation is usually so centered around how much a player helps his team win. ROY tends to be a much more individualistic award and go to teams were contributions to winning aren't important because the teams don't win much.
I expect Philly will be below .500 as Fultz and Simmons will both have a shot at ROY.
ask Embiid and Saric how it went this year
Embiid didn't win ROY because the majority of voters didn't think he played in enough games not because he split the vote with Saric. If Embiid had played in 10 more games he would have won easily.
Yeah i agree with this. If Embiid played 10-20 more games he would have won ROY year in a landslide. When Saric was playing better the 76ers were really trailing off (not surprising given they were missing Embid). So the voters gave Brodgen the win for coming in and being the starting point guard with ok numbers for a team that made the playoffs. The big takeaways from last year were the rookie class was pretty awful year 1 and that you won't ROY playing in 31 games. I don't think "splitting the vote" was the big story either.
-
another year where 76ers will have two rookies competing for ROY since usually all the rookies they draft gets injured
True. But doesn't that mean that Fultz becomes eligible for ROY next year? ;)
Mike
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
Fair enough. TP for our most pleasant discussion ever!
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?
To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?
To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough. However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league. Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt.
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?
To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough. However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league.Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt.
I think a much bigger factor was Illysova getting traded. He was starting. Once Dario started starting he averaged 15 and 7. When he was off the bench it was 11 and 6. He also did shoot 41% from the field and 31% from 3 for the year which is not exactly incredible efficiency.
I think Saric is a solid player but he got way too much hype for throwing up 15 shots a game the second half of the season on poor efficiency for a team that was playing some of the worst basketball in the league.
-
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists). Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.
I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other. I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz. If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well. It is only natural for that to happen. A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st. In a close race, those points matter. Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?
To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough. However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league. Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt.
I guess I just don't understand why you believe this. Brogdon's numbers were comparable to Saric's (less points and rebounds, but more assists and way more efficient, same minutes) on a better team. It's not like someone totally undeserving snuck in. It looks to me like more voters thought Brogdon deserved it. Not much else to it.